Universal Radiators v. CIT

201 ITR 800Supreme Court of India1993#11281 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 194HSection 2(19AA)Section 28(iv)Section 35ABBSection 35DDSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

profits and gains of business or professionsection 194section 19long term capital gainsection 40transfercompanysection 143(3)personbusinessindiatotal income

Judgments citing Universal Radiators v. CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4513/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

…he advocate because of the car is a direct offshoot of the exercise of his profession/business, is thus chargeable to tax u/s. 28(iv) of the Act. In this regard, he placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Universal Radiators vs. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 800. 16. Without prejudice he submitted that if at all there is a benefit, the said transaction at worst could be considered to be a gift being a transfer of property without consideration. In this connection, it is further submitted that corporate can also give and accept gifts and the Ld. AO made an erroneous presumption that only natural persons c…

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4318/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

…he advocate because of the car is a direct offshoot of the exercise of his profession/business, is thus chargeable to tax u/s. 28(iv) of the Act. In this regard, he placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Universal Radiators vs. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 800. 16. Without prejudice he submitted that if at all there is a benefit, the said transaction at worst could be considered to be a gift being a transfer of property without consideration. In this connection, it is further submitted that corporate can also give and accept gifts and the Ld. AO made an erroneous presumption that only natural persons c…

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1807/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 80T

…ner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the amounts were revenue in nature as the land would have been part of the stock-in-trade. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in its judgment after noticing the Supreme Court's judgment in Universal Radiators v. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 800 (SC) held that in the facts of this case, the amount which was intended to be ultimately used as stock-in-trade purposes were immobile and sterilised, hence rendered non-offerable and therefore when received, as part of the arbitration award, fell into the capital stream. The relevant discussion in the impugned order of the Income-tax Appellate T…

KALUBHAI DULABHAI GOLAVIYA,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , SURAT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin K Parekh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B.Koli, CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 45(3)Section 54F

…ion 50 and if accepted, it would render section 50 nugatory. h. The AO's contention that there is no connection between asset becoming sterile and capital gain. This is in contrast to decision of supreme court in the case of Universal radiators vs. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 800 (SC). IT(SS)A Nos.15 & ITA No.619/SRT/2018 A.Ys. 11-12 & 14-15 Sh. Kalubhai D Golaviya i. Further, the AO has not appreciated the facts correctly. A perusal of the chronology of the events reveal that a litigation as regard the title of the land commenced after the Assessee had acquired the land on 31.12.2007. Kindly refer letter dated 26.09.200…

ACIT 28 (2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. M/S NEEL SIDDHI DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 30/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.30/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neel Siddhi Developers 2Nd Floor, The Emerald Plot No. Of Income Tax 28(2), 195/B, Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai बिधम/ Mumbai- 400 703 Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower Vs. No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagfn2744N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)

…ion 50 and if accepted, it would render section 50 nugatory. h. The AO's contention that there is no connection between asset becoming sterile and capital gain. This is in contrast to decision of supreme court in the case of Universal radiators vs. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 800 (SC). i. Further, the AO has not appreciated the facts correctly. A perusal of the chronology of the events reveal that a litigation as regard the title of the land commenced after the Assessee had acquired the land on 31.12.2007. Kindly refer letter dated 26.09.2008 written by the Assessee to the Commissioner Nagpur Municipal Corporation wherein…

BATLIBOI LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5428/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A

…73 ITR 1 (SC) c) Decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mehboob Productions Pvt Ltd vs CIT reported in 106 ITR 758 (Bom) 7 M/s. Batliboi Limited d) Decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Universal Radiators vs CIT reported in 201 ITR 800 (SC) 3.10. We find that the ld AO did not appreciate the contentions of the assessee and observed that the receipt of Rs 4.27 crores cannot be regarded as „windfall‟ within the meaning of the word arrived at by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mehboob Productions Pvt Ltd vs CIT supra because of the following reasons :- a) It is not…

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4710/DEL/2010[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2020AY 1995-96

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri P. Maharishi & Vs Continental Construction Acit, Ltd, 28, Nehru Place, Circle – 3(1), New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. Building, (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) & Vs Acit, Continental Construction Ltd, Circle – 3(1), 28, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Building, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Fca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2020

…not an income and therefore, not taxable is based on an incorrect appreciation of facts and law. Thus, the CIT(A) held that the receipt cannot even be taxed as capital in nature. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) Universal Radiators vs. CIT 201 ITR 800 ii) CIT vs. Xylon Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (Bom HC) iii) UCO Bank vs. CIT (SC) iv) ACIT vs. Arvind Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Del. Tri.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the main issue that needs to be decided in respect of A.Y. 1995-96 is whether compensation of Rs. 297.47 crores received by the assessee by way of bonds issued by RBI on behalf of the…

M/S. AERENS DEVELOPERS AND ENGINEERS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

ITA 5054/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri J.S. Reddy Assessment Yea: 2007-08 Aerens Developers & Engineers Ltd., Vs. Acit, 6Th Floor, Mohindra Tower, Central Circel-8, 2A-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaca2199R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Yea: 2007-08 Aerens R. Infra-Structure Ltd., Vs. Acit, 6Th Floor, Mohindra Tower, Central Circel-8, 2A-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaca2199R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Department By: Shri R.K. Garg, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 :08.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessees Have Questioned The First Appellate Order On The Following Common Grounds Of Appeals: The Order Of Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Bad In Law & On Facts. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Taxing The Compensation Of Rs. 1 Crore As Revenue Receipt Ignoring The Various Judicial Pronouncements & Submissions Of The Assessee. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Wrongly Rejected The Additional Evidence, I The Shape Of Fard Of Land & Resolution Of The Company, Produced By The As Per The Provision Of Rule 46A.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Garg, DR

…tted this fact as correct (iii) the assessee has never debited the expenses in its P& L rather has shown the amount as mere investment via consortium. Therefore, the principle of law as laid down by the apex court in the case of Universal Radiator reported in 201 ITR 800 are squarely applicable to the facts of the assesee’s case. Copy of the decision is annexed decision Paper Book, wherein it has been held that compensation received on destruction of some product from which stock in trade was to be manufactured is a capital receipt”. 8. The Learned DR on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the author…

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1281/BANG/2010[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2015AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Sr. Counsel

…age 36 of 45 or money. According to him the Assessee received Rs.30 crores in the present case and therefore Sec.28(iv) of the Act will not apply. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Universal Radiator Vs. CIT 201 ITR 800 (SC). In the aforesaid case the Assessee was carrying on the business of manufacturing radiators. It imported copper ingots from USA which were to be converted into strips at Bombay and then sent to assessee for being used as raw material. The ship carrying assessee's copper ingots were seized by Pakistan during war. The Assessee received claim…

Universal Radiators v. CIT (201 ITR 800) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax